Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

sitkill writes "A Canadian Federal Court ruling has rejected the Tory Cabinet's decision to overturn a CRTC mandate not allowing Globalive (which is more commonly known in Canada as the mobile carrier Wind) to operate in Canada. This is a small vindication to the embattled CRTC, which has been recently in the spotlight for its decision on usage based billing, drawing criticism from the Tory Cabinet. The CEO, Mr. Lacavera, stressed that this would not result in Globalive's Wind Mobile being shut down, simply that it would require another round of wrangling with the regulator over how much foreign influence is acceptable in a Canadian telecommunications company."

O hell no. I think it's high time the carriers in Canada need to be taught a lesson.

I have a Wind Mobile phone at the moment. I LOVE the service. I've shopped around, and no other company can even come remotely close to touching my plan. Last time I shopped around, other carriers either wouldn't even carry that kind of quality service, or the price was 2 to 3 times as much. If letting foreign companies own telecoms in Canada means Canadians stop getting charged absurdly high prices for phone service that would cost half as much anywhere else in the world, then I'm all for it.

I've been with the other major carriers here. They keep saying there's competition for cell service in Canada, but all the companies keep treating their customers as if there's a monopoly, so up till now even if we switch carriers things never get better. Wind is a great start, but when it comes to phone and internet service in Canada, the market is sick with protectionist corruption.

More importantly: the CRTC needs to be destroyed with extreme prejudice. They are so utterly transparent in their role as federal shills for the incumbent mega-telcos, largely staffed by ex-board members. Those assclowns should be lined up in front of Ted Rogers' grave and executed by firing squad.

The CRTC is single-handedly responsible for setting Canada back 15 years on the network front. I'm not shitting you, my internet was faster and more reliable, back in 1995 when the first wave of cable modems hit my area. No caps, 10/1.5 mbits, no throttling, no peak-time decimation, no DNS hijacking, and no blocked ports whatsoever. Today you're lucky if you can even websurf without some goddamned P-Cube box giving your packets a colonoscopy. The entire industry has devolved into a nihilistic "fuck the customer" game, thanks to this protectionism under guise of consumer advocacy, and all the propaganda that "average users only need 2gb, everyone above that must be an evil pirate", which of course a lot of (sheepish) people blindly accept as the gospel truth.

Ditch the CRTC, socialize the damn telcos since just about every citizen is paying into the same 3 corporations anyway, and let's get back to being offensively polite before I liquefy Fincklestein's fat head.

- Delaying satellite TV in Canada for several years
- The extreme uptake in satellite piracy in Canada (Badly crafted laws combined with the CRTC's penchant for restricting quality foreign content created a perfect storm for otherwise honest people to pirate American satellite. You can't feel sorry for taking the forbidden fruit, when that forbidden fruit is simply forbidden television)
- Delaying satellite radio in Canada for so long I imagine there are still more grey market accounts than there are legitimate ones, and castrating Canadian satellite radio
- Permitting lock-in from Cable TV companies by not supporting cable card
- Placing honest immigrants in prison for paying for foreign TV (a crime in Canada due to the CRTC)
- Destroying Canada's status as a North American radio powerhouse. Did you know at one point a Canadian radio station controlled the radio market so seriously that Bob Seger wrote a song deriding Canada's stranglehold on the industry (Rosalie)?
- Ruining the quality of Canadian output by not requiring it compete on its own merits. Instead, most all media in Canada is required, by law, to play Canadian content, even if it sucks or is virtually non-existent (eg: Jazz music).
- Adjusting the very laws that destroyed CKLW to suit Bryan Adams, because they felt he deserved more airtime (really!)
- Creating and monitoring the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council who have gone so overbaord, they've required stations here to censor Dire Straits "Money for Nothing", despite that the song is written as a monologue describing the actual views of a real person of rock stars from the 80s.

Those are just some of the things. The CRTC is an anachronism and must be stopped. I'm just so glad Canadians are starting to wake up to this. Give me my DirectTV and Clear Channel, PLEASE!

they've required stations here to censor Dire Straits "Money for Nothing", despite that the song is written as a monologue describing the actual views of a real person of rock stars from the 80s.

You don't think the lyric "that little faggot's got his own jet airplane. that little faggot he's a millionaire" might be worthy of censoring? I'm a big Dire Straits fan, but I can see why they don't want that playing at drive time. At least that makes sense. I want to know who turned the radio version of Eminem

I know we're splitting nits, here, but there's a world of difference between "gay" and "faggot". If the lyrics had gone "that little homo, he's a millionaire"... well okay that's a lot closer to home, but faggot is on the same level as wuss and sissy, and is more commonly said of straight men who act effeminately (for the attention).

Now, think back to 1985. What did we have on MTV ? Glam metal! A bunch of straight men, with poofy long hair, wearing pounds of makeup to make them look like 3rd-rate drag q

Yeah, I remember a few years back my internet connection was severed purposely by the cable company Cogeco. Their rational was that I went over my CAP. My response was WTF is a CAP? They were like, well you can only Upload/Download 60GB a month. I was like, WTF I have never had that before, when was this done? They responded that it was done a few months ago. I demanded to know why the heck I wasn't notified and how can they just change a contract? They said if I check my EULA that change is in there. I ask

A Canadian Federal Court ruling has rejected the Tory Cabinet's decision to overturn a CRTC mandate not allowing Globalive (which is more commonly known in Canada as the mobile carrier Wind) to operate in Canada.

Can we please unscramble this? I lost count of the negatives. Can Globalive operate in Canada, or not?

Importantly, cabinet cannot overrule the CRTC merely because it's cabinet. The CRTC is charged with ruling based on laws as written, but the government can always pass new laws.

Wind mobile is probably in serious trouble right now, because for the government (which is a minority party) to wrangle any of the other parties on board for this might be tough. Opposition to UBB has support from the liberals, the NDP and the conservatives (and I have no idea about the Bloc, and the greens have no seats so their o

(Note: this is based on my memory of reading the decision last night at 4 a.m., and I don't feel like rereading it for a/. comment; some things may be slightly off, and IANAL, but the gist is correct.)

Telecommunications companies in Canada cannot be "influenced" by non-Canadians, which means while non-Canadians can have a stake in a company, it can't be significant (there's no set standard, but think under 10% or 20% and not on the board). (Whether this policy is a good idea is fully debatable, but it's the law.)

Globalive (operating as Wind Mobile) is an upstart Canadian cell phone company run by Canadians (technically, they're old, but new to the cell market); there's no dispute here. However, to bid in the recent spectrum auction, it needed cash. So they called up Orascom, an Egyptian company, to get some financing. But they needed so much money that if they issued equity (shares) Orascom would own more than half of Globalive, breaking the Telecommunications Act. So they decided to borrow the money (debt) from them instead, thereby getting around the rules.

Public Mobile, another upstart Canadian company that also won spectrum in the auction, said this was unfair: they played by the rules and got financing from Canadians, and so took Globalive to the CRTC. The regulator ruled that while "in law" Globalive was certainly Canadian, "in fact" they owed so much money as a part of their overall net worth (~2/3) to Orascom there was no way the latter couldn't have influence on the former, which meant Globalive broke the rules and couldn't even bid in the spectrum auction, let alone operate in Canada.

The Conservative Government, which is generally pro-free market (in favour of foreign investment and competition and against regulators and government, though many have argued their actions haven't matched their ideals (see, e.g. Potash Corp., supply management, etc.)), issued a cabinet decision that overruled their regulator, thereby allowing Globalive to operate (which it did within days). They are allowed to overrule the CRTC, but they can't just say "because I said so": they need to justify their reasons, and the Federal Court can review their decision to see if their reasons are reasonable. (Obviously any decision will be debatable, so there is some standard for reasonableness.) So Public Mobile took the government to court. (For those interested in where our scummy telcos (Bell, Rogers, Telus) lined up, they all, of course, favoured less competition, so wanted to get Globalive out of business regardless of the merits of the case, though only Telus spoke at trial. We know they're hypocrites because their execs have all publicly lobbied for opening up telcos to foreign ownership and financing, while arguing against it here.)

The court ruled that the CRTC was correct in determining that Globalive was influenced by a non-Canadian, and that the government's "reasons" for their decision did not change this.

Basically, there are four basic tenets of telecommunications policy set out in the act, and one of them is the no non-Canadian influence part. The government tried to say that this part was less important than the other three parts, and that this part should only be applied "when possible" (i.e. when it won't conflict with the other parts). The government also seemingly added another tenet, which was that companies should search for technological advancement from outside Canada. And lastly, it said its cabinet decision applied only to Globalive, so wasn't precedent.

The court said while there would be nothing wrong with a policy that had some tenets be more important than others, or one that added other tenets, that's not what the law says, and unless Parliament (legislative branch) changes this, the Cabinet (executive branch) can't issue a decision that isn't grounded in law. The court also said the arbitrariness of the decision (applying only to Globalive) further proved their decision couldn't stand.

(For those interested in where our scummy telcos (Bell, Rogers, Telus) lined up, they all, of course, favoured less competition, so wanted to get Globalive out of business regardless of the merits of the case, though only Telus spoke at trial. We know they're hypocrites because their execs have all publicly lobbied for opening up telcos to foreign ownership and financing, while arguing against it here.)

It's actually not hypocritical at all. What the major telecoms are saying is that they are in favour of relaxed foreign ownership rules, but they are NOT in favour of selective enforcement of the rules. Currently Globalive is allowed to operate as essentially a foreign company on Canadian soil, meanwhile nobody else is allowed to raise money overseas. How is this fair? If Globalive can do it, so should everyone else.

The problem here isn't the decision to allow Globalive to operate, it's the inequality of allowing them to do this while preventing anyone else from doing the same.

The court ruled (sensibly) that the government can't have it both ways, they need to either make Globalive play by the rules, OR change the rules (they're the government, they can do that.) The major telecom companies, while not overly wanting the competition, DO want a level playing field, and would prefer the government fix the rules.

Honestly, I don't see Wind Mobile shutting down. What I see as most likely in this case is for the government to relax foreign ownership rules, theoretically enabling more competition. But doing so in a fair way such that everybody works from the same rule book, which is the only fair way to do this. One time exceptions just aren't the way things should be done.

Bell hasn't had any large tie with US companies since the 60s... I'm not sure what percentage is now owned by foreign interests, but I'm certain it's below the regulatory threshold (on a side note, "Bell Canada" didn't really start off as a subsidiary of Bell in the US, but rather as a separate Canadian entity owned by the father of Alexander Graham Bell who did a lot of his original work in Canada.)

I know that Verizon used to own the maximum legally allowed amount of TELUS stock (I seem to think it was abo

This side conversation (starting with telso) is an excellent description with a mostly-neutral yet extremely informative and correct description of the issue. Often enough people just spout knee-jerk reactions without looking at the reasons, and that doesn't make for a very good discussion. Thanks to both telso and green1 for providing a reasonable amount of sanity while actually discussing the issues.

To continue with that, I don't mind expanding foreign investments in Canada, and with Canadian companies, b

Lending money does not give the lender legal influence in the company unless and until the company breaks the terms of the loan and cedes ownership to the lender. That's the difference between credit and equity.

And while the Egyptians may have been willing to invest in the company, they ceded any control of the company by merely lending.

If that's not allowed by the law that spells out prohibited ownership levels, then it would have to be spelled out as a prohibited situation as well, and if it isn't spelle

Not the government, the CRTC, which is a federally-subsidized shill operating on behalf of the big 3 telcos. Officially, the CRTC is supposed to keep them in check, fighting for the consumers, but in reality they just cash their "thank you" cheques and read whatever propaganda Bell/Rogers/Telus puts on the lectern.

If the court follows the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law, there's something wrong. The spirit of the law has to do with protecting the Canadian Consumer. The spirit of the law has less to do with protecting the existing old boys' market share.

Taken from the article: "Globalive, which is backed financially by Egyptian communications giant Orascom Telecom, was denied a licence in 2009 to operate bythe federal telecommunications regulator(CRTC) on the grounds that it did not meet Canadian ow

Uh, no the courts shouldn't just decide that they don't like the law and won't enforce it. They should be enforcing the letter of the law, because if the letter of the law isn't in line with the spirit of the law, then the law should be changed.

If the courts have the power to decide what's legal based on their own gut feeling, then they are effectively making the laws, which is something that parliament should be doing.

And neither should parliament (especially not a minority government) should be able to di

They can operate... the courts gave them 60 days (I think... something like that) and there is no interest to shut them down (by anyone, regulators, competitors, consumers, you name it)... more competition in wireless is desired, not less. So an extension will almost certainly be offered to allow them time to sort the issue out.

The court case centred around how GlobalLive was financed. Through a bit of creative reading of the law, GlobalLive is structured so that almost 100% of the financing is foreign (

It's patently obvious to most Canadians that many of our government agencies collude with industry to screw citizens out of their hard earned dollars. From protectionism to anti-competitive regulation, it seems like virtually everyone we employ from city to federal government is cashing two paycheques.

Didn't really see this one coming though. Usually the courts exercise some amount of restraint enforcing bad law after bad law.

It is high time the CRTC was disbanded entirely - they serve no discernible purpose other than the purposes you, nightfire-unique, describe above.

Once that's done, abolish the CBC (Canada's socialized TV station, which is funded to the tune of $1B+ in tax dollars and largely airs Simpson's re-runs while unable to even keep the content flowing 24 hours a day). It is shocking that anyone should argue in favor of every worker spending a part of his or her day working such that TV shows which cannot survive on their own merit can be produced with the resultant tax revenue. It is bad enough that Canada should subsidize and encourage crimes against nature like Celine Dion, but did the world really need Tommy Hunter?!?

I'm Canadian and I moved to the US about 10 years ago. The things that I miss the most is a relatively balanced news program (i.e. CBC-TV) and hockey. It's refreshing when I go back to visit to actually get news instead of nothing but a series of talking pundits and commentarys (i.e. CNN and Fox, though I very rarely watch Fox). In addition, CBC also includes radio programming. In fact, if you want to hear good cutting edge Canadian bands (i.e. not Celine, etc.) then listen to CBC Radio 3 sometime. It'

If their content is really that good, it ought to be able to stand on its own - there's an awful lot of horrid content that somehow manages to. I'm glad you like what they're broadcasting; forcing me to work, on threat of imprisonment, to fund that content is an absurdity.

It is high time the CRTC was disbanded entirely - they serve no discernible purpose other than the purposes you, nightfire-unique, describe above.

Once that's done, abolish the CBC (Canada's socialized TV station, which is funded to the tune of $1B+ in tax dollars and largely airs Simpson's re-runs while unable to even keep the content flowing 24 hours a day). It is shocking that anyone should argue in favor of every worker spending a part of his or her day working such that TV shows which cannot survive on their own merit can be produced with the resultant tax revenue. It is bad enough that Canada should subsidize and encourage crimes against nature like Celine Dion, but did the world really need Tommy Hunter?!?

Like one of the other AC respondents, I am also a Canadian living in the USA. And I think it would be disastrous if the CRTC and CBC were disbanded.

You would be shocked at how invisible Canada is in the media south of the border. Honestly, it's like we don't exist at all. Other parts of the world outside the USA get far more coverage. If you were to dismantle the CRTC and the CBC, you would say goodbye to any Canadian identity in the media. American culture would eclipse it, finally and forever.

You are quite correct that part of the CRTC's mandate is force-feeding Canadians "Canadian content". There are complicated formulae for what exactly constitutes "Canadian content", depending on such things as who wrote a piece of music, who produced it, where it was recorded, etc etc etc ad nauseum. (As an aside, it was the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, not the CRTC, which recently banned the Dire Straits song "Money for Nothing" based on a single complaint about the line, "The little faggot got his

That's quite typical of the insecurity of Canadians when it comes to national identity. Really, why would you care what the Americans think of Canadians? Americans in general are rather convinced the US is all there is of note in the world - just ask them to find a random country on a globe. That's just the way they're built.

And "say goodbye to any Canadian identity in the media"? A good chunk of "American culture" is made by Canadians, ie Mike Myers, Michael J Fox, Jim Carrey, James Doohan (Scotty), Willi

I'm sorry, but I honestly think you are missing my point (and confirming it in the process): you are lamenting the lack of attention Canada gets in relation to other countries on US media and by implication arguing national identity is created by media. It's not. If anything, media reflects national identity. And really, why worry that other people should be unable to isolate their national identity? What is it that you think constitutes "Canadian culture" in the first place? The usual answers tend to be ho

By arguing that Canadian content would dry up absent forcible exposure and subsidies, you are arguing that there is no inherent demand for Canadian content, and there I will agree with you.

For a very small minority it is important that Canadians perceive themselves in a way that the same minority deems in their interests. But "culture" is never made by government edict. "Culture" arises organically, and either sticks around or changes or disappears. Now, I certainly don't begrudge you your views, and if yo

Not necessarily. Casual exposure would increase demand as most people would not actively seek Canadian content on that criteria alone. However, given the exposure, many people enjoy / feel a sense of pride at being part of a Canadian music.

Also it seems a little unfair to call having exposure to culture/content that is Canadian a "pet project". You make it sound as though the CBC is hiding in some garage, maliciously foisting Canadian content on others.

I don't listen to CBC, but the French-speaking pendant, Radio-Canada, actually airs a lot of very interesting shows. I'm more than happy to pay for them. The news is also fairly balanced and well-made.

Maybe what's needed is some investigation in the CBC's funding and choices for shows instead of just destroying it entirely?

CBC needs to stop trying to be like its U.S. uncles. And for the love of Jebus, stop producing those imbecilic comedy shows like "This hour has 22 minutes" and whatever absurdist filth Rick Mercer is peddling. We have a lot of great content and artistry, there is no point in stooping to Fox-like depths with this lowest-common-denominator programming. They already know what quality is, thanks to the magnificent CBC Radio, so what's with the mediocre TV ?

While I agree that the CRTC should go, or at least have their role limited and a new regulator take over parts.

I disagree about the CBC. I enjoy much of the programing both TV and radio and I think a billion bucks in the grand scheme of things is a small price to pay for having a Canadian national network. The only thing I would like to see is perhaps an analysis of how much it costs CBC to run VS say a commercial network, and if it is absurdly higher, then to look at trimming the fat a bit.

Typical in this goddamned backward country. We should be thanking our lucky stars we have cell phone companies like Bell and Rogers to protect us from those evil American companies and their low prices.

Ok, so step by step...
CRTC says 'Hey Wind Mobile, we don't want you operating in Canada'. Tories say 'That ain't right they should be able to operate in Canada'. Federal Court says 'Hey Tories, STFU Wind Mobile isn't doing business in Canada.'
This is all quite confusing to me since I was under the impression that Wind was already operating in western Canada.

They operate in Calgary, but haven't yet expanded the coverage to actually include all the edges of this sprawled out city. Their map said "Coming in late 2010", but I haven't heard any updates yet. People at the Telephone Booth also suggested their downtown coverage isn't great (owing to buildings), but I haven't tested that.

1) The law as currently written says Wind Mobile can't operate in Canada due to foreign ownership restrictions.2) CRTC follows the law and says Wind Mobile can't operate due to foreign ownership restrictions.3) Tories say they should be able to operate in Canada.4) Somebody, probably a competitor not happy with 3), takes it to court.5) Federal Court says: Wind Mobile should not be doing business in Canada because the law says it can't.6) Tories are going to have to get the law changed if they want

This decision is especially bad as Wind is one of the few companies that's actually offering competition against the big telcos and cable companies. They have low-priced data plans without long term contracts, and actually seem to want your business. It's too bad they don't cover more area. With this and the usage based billing decision it's becoming more and more obvious that the CRTC is bought and paid for by the existing 'big guys' in the industry.

I would be ok with that, but you can bet all those kids with expensive smartphones wouldn't. How do you think they could pay for those phones if they weren't subsidized? And you can bet they'd rather have the subsidy up front - damn the consequences - so they can go on Facebook and Twitter without having to fork out $400-700.

That's ridiculous. It's a condemnation of the Harper government's attempt to circumvent the foreign ownership laws on behalf of one particular company, without actually bothering to amend the law first.

Congratulations, you're the first person to post that actually seems to understand the issue. This has nothing to do with whether the foreign ownership rules are "right" or "fair" this is entirely about making exceptions to laws for specific people/companies.

The only way a civilized society can function is if everyone is playing from the same set of rules. You can't allow one company to circumvent the rules while prohibiting anyone else from doing the same.

The judge in this case sensibly ruled that the government has 2 choices, make Globalive follow the rules, or change the rules to be the same for everyone.

Now the ball is back in the government's court, and they can decide what to do with our foreign ownership rules, and they can decide what to do for EVERYBODY this time.

Many (most?) Canadian telcoms have some foreign ownership, the question is how much, there's a maximum percentage allowed by the law (my memory says 30%, but I don't remember for certain)Over the years Rogers has had ownership from Sprint, TELUS has ownership by Verizon, Bell has had ownership by AT&T, I'm sure the list goes on and on. From a government stand point the critical part has been making sure that the foreign owners never have enough of a stake to control the company.

The obvious solution is for the government (assuming they are still in fact pro-competition and still support the idea of Wind Mobile operating in Canada) to pass a law removing the requirement that telcos be operated by Canadians.

Why did Globalive have to go half way around the world to get money in the first place?
Because this country and its investment banking and VC community are a joke and nothing more than ex-bankers playing with a handful of land developer's money.
The truth is that any decent company from any field (tech/biotech or other) will abandan/sell-out Canada eventually because our own country lacks the fundamental principles of investing in itself.

rejected x to overturn y not allowing z.
In the end this requires quite a bit of thought WHAT was the result.
That's why I always teach "Use variables and functions with positive logic, so you always use "isCorrect", not " !isFaulty" because very soon it devolves into unmaintainable mess.

For a long time, Canada has been ass backwards over how it allows cable and phone companies to operate. When cell phone companies wanted to charge BOTH ways for text messages, members of parliament debated allowing more companies into the country. That got stomped out RIGHT quick. Don't kid yourself, the government is NOT in charge of this country.

Looks like Bell Wins another round, as their puppet (the CRTC) gets to block off another competitor from entering into Canada!After all, we can't have anyone compete with Ma Bell, or Regulate them into fair market pricing, or anything...

The issue is not competition or even wireless-related at all. There is a Federal Law specifying some minimum requirements. The cabinet decided that we will give a one-time exception to a particular private company, and allow them to break the law. A federal judge said: no, cabinet cannot do that, if they want to make exceptions in law, they have to do it the proper way: pass a bill, through parliament.
I think this is a great decision since this gives more power to the democratically elected parliament,

I am torn about this issue. While the Canadian in me doesn't want to see foreign companies own a majority in a Canadian telecom, the consumer in me is really upset about how much cell service costs in this country (i.e. *way* more expensive than most other countries). Bell and Rogers charge for incoming SMS if you don't have SMS in your plan, and it seems that they work with each other to fix prices. Not only does Canadian consumers need competition for these folks, this competition needs deep pockets in

The CRTC wanted to FORCE a 25 gig cap on broadband users. When the idea came under fire they "postponed" it for 2 months to avoid criticism. We should continue campaigning against it regardless because they intend to do it once we turn our backs and schedule it so it doesn't affect the next federal election.

There is no good reason for the decision to implement such a cap which makes the scary possibilities even more poignant.

Keep up to date on freedom of speech rallies in Canada and remember to vote for